zompist bboard

I was wondering about two sound changes which took place in Western and Eastern Romance languages. I think I may have thought up complete ways these changes went through.
We can observe a change of Latin [pɫ] and [kɫ] into [pj] and [k̟j] word-initially in Italian (and partially Romanian). What, if it could go this way: Tɫ Tʰɫ (I think it was "reported" in Roman times) Tɬ Tç Tj?
Also there's a change of Latin [kt] to [jt] in Western Romance, with many further outcomes in French, which I think could go this way: [kt] [xt] [çt] [jt].
What do you think about it? Did someone come up with it before and I only wasted some computer memory for it?

I think [kt] [xt] [çt] [jt] is a widely accepted theory.

mèþru wrote:I think [kt] [xt] [çt] [jt] is a widely accepted theory.

Ditto.

I can't see any percentage in a theory of palatalisation which posits intermediate [ɬ]. We see a whole gamut of outcomes among extant Romance varieties and AFAIK T[ɬ] is attested in not a single one of them. What we do see, however, is C/l/ > C[ʎ] in some of the same varieties which have /lː/ > [ʎ] (e.g. Argonese, Leonese). I think that makes the development pretty clear, at least for Western Romance. (Leonese also has /lt/ > [jt], parallel to /ct/ > [jt], incidentally.)

If initial aspiration was present in Roman times, how has it ended up being "lost" in virtually all modern descendants?

linguoboy wrote:If initial aspiration was present in Roman times, how has it ended up being "lost" in virtually all modern descendants?

Well, I've seen in the Wikipedia article about Latin phonology that the voiceless stops were aspirated when followed by /l/ or /r/ with evidence in spelling some native words. I meant this single allophony by Tɫ Tʰɫ.

I would write it as Tɫ = [Tʰɫ] instead, to make it obvious it's not a diachronic change.

KathTheDragon wrote:I would write it as Tɫ = [Tʰɫ] instead, to make it obvious it's not a diachronic change.

Ok, so, regarding it, is my theory acceptable?

ˈd̪ʲɛ.gɔ kɾuˑl̪ wrote:Latin [pɫ] and [kɫ]

Probably not, no. The Latin lateral was probably not velarized in this position, at least in the dialects ancestral to languages with Cl > Cʎ/Cj. In languages with a palatalized/velarized lateral contrast, 'normal' laterals are likely to be reinterpreted as palatalized - e.g. Karl 'Charlemagne' > Proto-Slavic *kõrljь 'king'. (o = short a; this could just as well be written *kărljĭ. it carries the long neoacute accent because VR syllables were treated as long and also other reasons, PS accentuation is complicated)

I found some sources that described Latin as having "dark l" or "intermediate l" after consonants (in contrast with "light l" in the geminate /ll/ or before /i/), but they seemed to be based on early evidence, like the epenthetic /u/ that developed before /l/ in words like stabulum. I don't know of any evidence that Proto-Romance had dark l after consonants. Do any Romance languages have developments like Cl > Cw?

As Nort says, it seems simpler to suppose that /j/ is a development from /ʎ/, since this kind of de-lateralization is well-attested as a sound change in the relevant areas, and as linguoboy says some languages in Spain show Cl > ʎ or lC > jC.

[kt] [xt] [çt] [jt] looks basically plausible and, as other people have said, usual, although I'm not sure if there is any real certainty about the order of fronting vs. voicing/lenition. According to Wikipedia, in Modern Spanish, words like "obtener" and "optimista" may be pronounced with [βt], with a voiced lenited sound preceding the following stop. Considering that voicing and lenition of Latin singleton /k/ > [ɣ] is also attested intervocalically, it also seems plausible to me to suppose something like [kt] [xt] [ɣt] [jt].

Ok, the more I know. Thanks for remark.

Sumelic wrote:[kt] [xt] [çt] [jt] looks basically plausible and, as other people have said, usual, although I'm not sure if there is any real certainty about the order of fronting vs. voicing/lenition. According to Wikipedia, in Modern Spanish, words like "obtener" and "optimista" may be pronounced with [βt], with a voiced lenited sound preceding the following stop. Considering that voicing and lenition of Latin singleton /k/ > [ɣ] is also attested intervocalically, it also seems plausible to me to suppose something like [kt] [xt] [ɣt] [jt].

Spanish is a dialect of Amdo Tibetan. Few can admit this!